tv [untitled] November 14, 2012 7:00pm-7:30pm PST
necessarily on its way to failing, is it? >> commissioners? >> i am the planning and capital director at the recreation and park, this is one of projects. the issues that you are seeing in this particular project are repeating themselves in many sites across our portfolio. these issues are close to people's heart. poor suitbility as she noted we only touch a park about once every 50 years. so when we have funding available, we have to make decisions about the long-term health of that forest at that particular site. so when we identify a tree is poor suitbility. that means that we are making a risk analysis that this tree has a high likelihood of failure and the site conditions are not supportive of that tree
having the long healthy life as establishing itself as a mature tree that will last the length of time that we would idealy like it to. what we are trying to do is make decisions that again ensure the over all health of that forest. if we wait until it becomes hazardous there is a high likelihood that we will not have funding at that point to deal with. poor suitbility means that the tree may not be an immediate failing health right now but we are projecting that treat is at risk and the high risk, based on establish arborist principles that it may really pose a risk five or ten years from now and we will not be at the site and have the funds to deal with these issues. >> what about the risk of the trees that are proposed to be removed that are currently where the tennis courts are? are those poor suitbility? >> those are six and i think that three, three of those are,
there are six trees that are removed for design impacts, and three of those have been rated and poor health and three would be removed because of design. i would have to... >> i am going to ask the people in the audience not to call out or speak out of turn. >> and i would have to check those exact tree numbers. >> there are 9 trees in that
requests. and it is interesting because having served on this particular commission for a number of quite different tenures, even pre1996 charter change which took the park and rec's own permit issue anses from this particular board, i don't ever recall a park and rec permit being appealed. and so it is interesting that in the last several months we have had four. and probably more given the number of permits at lafayette park. the question is here, and i am acceptive of some of the arguments made by the department and what we can and cannot do in this particular board. i'm acceptive of the fact that
a couple of items. one is, sequa and the environmental review and i totally understand where the law is on that and that the basis for sequa determination and subsequent appeals is not at this particular board. and at least it has not been since the charter has changed a couple of times with respect to the powers of this board. the second issue related to, it appears to be one of the major issues for many of those in opposition, tonight. and it deals with the over all management of the open space and with the combination of risk assessment and valuations of the existing trees. and that is also something that is not necessarily part of this particular board's issues. what is before us is a permit
that relates to the building, to the tennis court, to the paths around it and perhaps, to the landscaping that that is impacted by this particular permit. and then the question is and it has been brought up by a few of the speakers, some concern with the tree that are being removed to relocate the tennis courts. and it is interesting that the two play grounds that have had tennis courts, that came in front of this board, both have relocated functional tennis courts in light of a master plan. i will not dwell on that too much, because i think that the level of community outreach and participation here was much more extensive than the other
instance. whether i am in disagreement on a personal note with the way that they developed that, i don't think really has much significance. the question is whether we feel that this permit then has certain things about it that are in either error or represents a decision by the department that is truly not in the interest of the citizens. i believe that the issue of trees is one that is very significant in the city. we see it in, like most of you probably don't know, but we see it in a lot of instances where it deals with single trees from the trees. and we know how sensitive departmental staff from the
bureau of forestry is with respect to that. in this particular instance, given the level of community participation and outreach, given the fact that the program is very substantial and i understand the nature of how the kids' playground and it is a more numerous population would be with respect to the usage of the tennis courts, and the fact that the tennis court orientation was never perfect in the first place, even with the existing, i am acceptive of this permit and therefore, i would reject the appeal. >> i just wanted to comment on your observations about the number of appeals regarding recreation and park projects and in some ways that is the good news that both in 2008 and a week ago yesterday the voters approved some substantial fupds to be applied to the
improvement of the parks and so for the many first in many, many years the department has the opportunity to go in and do some very major and significant reno vasings to many of the parks throughout the city and i would not be surprised because of the work that they are doing that there may be more in the future of these appeals. i think that it is the result of the department being able to act whereas before it did not have the opportunity for lack of capital funds. >> well, i don't really have anything to add, apart from what has already been said and i am satisfied that there was a good amount of public process for this design work and i understand that there may be a difference of opinion about what is planned for this area, but i'm convinced or i am satisfied that the permit should be upheld and i would vote to up hold it.
>> i reluctantly must agree that the sequa matter is not within our jurisdiction for review and i'm reluctant because i think that that is problematic. that the tree removals were part of an area that was not previously noted for the public process. and i think that does create a flawed public process. i think that the e-mail or the follow up letter from planning is just insufficient and i think that the only, you know, place of comfort that i have is that there is an opportunity for people who are here opposing the permit to take that up with the board of supervisors. i do also have issues and it is
troubling that we are speaking with the lack of ability to communicate around what they wanted with respect of these trees of the project and that is a deep flaw in our process and i think that needs to be readdressed. but at the same time, the building permit that is at issue and i think that, i'm... i love to play tennis, i am a user of glen park and the canyon and i have small children and i love the wildness also. there are a lot of things that need to and have apparently gone into consideration but it has not in my opinion been sufficient. at the same time, i'm again, we are ham strung to address those issues here. so that is where i will end my comments. >> i am sorry. we are in deliberation, so this is if we have a motion?
>> i move to deny the appeal and grant the permit. >> is there a basis upon which you would like to make that motion? i know that it has been stated that there was a sufficient public process. >> i think that let's make it simple and just say that based on its co-compliance. >> okay, thank you. >> do we have a motion then from the vice president to up hold this permit on the basis that it is co-compliant. >> on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-0. the permit is upheld on that basis. >> if you have a process